A relative strength
Effective FG%
56.1% · rank 25 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Texas Tech
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.16
+22.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–112025–26 recorded finals
121.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
98.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Texas Tech.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1134 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.9Mean opponent adj. net 14.6 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
56.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 111 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 129 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 318 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 105 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
27.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.8 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.2 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.5% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 39.1% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 47.6% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.9% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.8% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.0% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 43.1% | 34 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
2,327 source possession rows across 34 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.4% · rank 99 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.8% · rank 318 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
27.7% · rank 348 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 10 times in the selected window; Texas Tech won 6. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 23, 2026 · neutral vs Alabama · L 65–90 · offense 93.8 / defense 129.9
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlabamaMar 23, 2026 · neutral | L 65–90 | 12 | 93.8 | 129.9 | 69.3 | 37.7 | 14.4 | 32.6 |
| AkronMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 91–71 | 75 | 139.4 | 108.8 | 65.3 | 74.5 | 15.3 | 33.3 |
| Iowa StateMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 53–75 | 5 | 81.9 | 115.9 | 64.7 | 42.0 | 15.5 | 17.9 |
| BYUMar 8, 2026 · road | L 76–82 | 19 | 124.8 | 134.6 | 60.9 | 60.3 | 14.8 | 34.4 |
| TCUMar 4, 2026 · home | L 65–73 | 48 | 101.6 | 114.1 | 64.0 | 55.7 | 23.5 | 23.3 |
| Iowa StateFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 82–73 | 5 | 127.1 | 113.1 | 64.5 | 71.7 | 23.2 | 37.5 |
| CincinnatiFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 80–68 | 41 | 131.5 | 111.8 | 60.8 | 61.5 | 19.7 | 48.0 |
| Kansas StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 100–72 | 83 | 144.9 | 104.3 | 69.0 | 65.3 | 8.7 | 34.5 |
| Arizona StFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 84 | 101.3 | 108.9 | 66.1 | 52.8 | 25.7 | 34.4 |
| ArizonaFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 78–75 | 3 | 110.8 | 106.6 | 62.6 | 49.2 | 11.4 | 30.0 |
| ColoradoFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 78–44 | 69 | 122.4 | 69.1 | 63.7 | 54.8 | 20.4 | 50.0 |
| West VirginiaFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 70–63 | 52 | 108.4 | 97.6 | 64.6 | 61.5 | 17.0 | 7.4 |
| KansasFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 61–64 | 17 | 88.1 | 92.4 | 69.3 | 40.3 | 13.0 | 29.8 |
| UCFJan 31, 2026 · road | L 80–88 | 56 | 115.8 | 127.4 | 69.1 | 66.4 | 18.8 | 15.4 |
| HoustonJan 24, 2026 · home | W 90–86 | 2 | 138.2 | 132.1 | 65.1 | 53.2 | 15.4 | 55.3 |
| BaylorJan 21, 2026 · road | W 92–73 | 33 | 136.6 | 108.4 | 67.4 | 75.5 | 19.3 | 21.7 |
| BYUJan 18, 2026 · home | W 84–71 | 19 | 119.5 | 101.0 | 70.3 | 55.1 | 14.2 | 30.3 |
| UtahJan 15, 2026 · home | W 88–74 | 93 | 122.7 | 103.2 | 71.7 | 60.7 | 15.3 | 37.1 |
| ColoradoJan 11, 2026 · road | W 73–71 | 69 | 107.2 | 104.3 | 68.1 | 49.3 | 13.2 | 35.6 |
| HoustonJan 7, 2026 · road | L 65–69 | 2 | 98.0 | 104.0 | 66.3 | 49.1 | 21.1 | 25.0 |
| Oklahoma StJan 3, 2026 · home | W 102–80 | 88 | 133.6 | 104.8 | 76.3 | 59.1 | 9.2 | 33.3 |
| WinthropDec 28, 2025 · home | W 87–57 | 153 | 123.2 | 80.7 | 70.6 | 59.3 | 19.8 | 33.3 |
| DukeDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 82–81 | 1 | 116.4 | 115.0 | 70.4 | 61.2 | 15.6 | 23.3 |
| N ColoradoDec 17, 2025 · home | W 101–90 | 149 | 148.3 | 132.2 | 68.1 | 70.7 | 4.4 | 15.4 |
| ArkansasDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 86–93 | 23 | 129.2 | 139.7 | 66.6 | 60.1 | 10.5 | 36.8 |
| LSUDec 7, 2025 · neutral | W 82–58 | 74 | 115.8 | 81.9 | 70.8 | 57.5 | 19.8 | 35.1 |
| WyomingNov 30, 2025 · home | W 76–72 | 132 | 112.2 | 106.3 | 67.7 | 52.7 | 14.8 | 33.3 |
| New OrleansNov 26, 2025 · home | W 82–50 | 299 | 116.3 | 70.9 | 70.5 | 52.3 | 17.0 | 42.9 |
| PurdueNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 56–86 | 9 | 84.4 | 129.5 | 66.4 | 40.0 | 13.6 | 21.4 |
| Wake ForestNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 84–83 | 60 | 111.7 | 110.4 | 75.2 | 50.0 | 18.6 | 41.0 |
| MilwaukeeNov 15, 2025 · home | W 80–63 | 218 | 123.3 | 97.1 | 64.9 | 53.2 | 13.9 | 41.7 |
| IllinoisNov 12, 2025 · road | L 77–81 | 7 | 107.1 | 112.6 | 71.9 | 57.8 | 18.1 | 23.3 |
| Sam HoustonNov 8, 2025 · home | W 98–77 | 127 | 139.1 | 109.3 | 70.5 | 60.3 | 15.6 | 50.0 |
| LindenwoodNov 5, 2025 · home | W 98–60 | 304 | 127.9 | 78.3 | 76.6 | 50.6 | 9.1 | 41.8 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Christian AndersonG | 33 | 38.4 | 18.5 | 3.6 | 7.4 | 62.6 | 23.8% | 33 | 2.2433 games | 26033 games |
| Donovan AtwellG | 34 | 34.7 | 13.5 | 3.2 | 0.8 | 68.3 | 15.1% | 34 | 1.9334 games | 28434 games |
| Jaylen PettyG | 33 | 30.4 | 9.9 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 55.5 | 16.4% | 33 | 2.4733 games | 18433 games |
| LeJuan WattsF | 33 | 27.3 | 11.8 | 6.0 | 2.4 | 53.3 | 25.1% | 33 | 0.9833 games | 7833 games |
| JT ToppinF | 25 | 34.8 | 21.8 | 10.8 | 2.1 | 57.1 | 31.1% | 25 | 0.8525 games | 5725 games |
| Tyeree BryanG | 33 | 17.1 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 47.1 | 11.5% | 33 | 2.0033 games | 7733 games |
| Luke BamgboyeF | 21 | 16.5 | 4.5 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 57.1 | 14.3% | 21 | 0.7721 games | 221 games |
| Leon HornerG | 23 | 9.0 | 2.8 | 2.0 | 0.2 | 55.0 | 16.1% | 23 | 0.6323 games | 1123 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Texas Tech?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
12Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
64%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 6 | 1,976 | 1,976 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,403 | 2,403 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,379 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
12 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaylen Petty →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 30.4 | 9.9 | 55.5% |
| LeJuan Watts →F | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 27.3 | 11.8 | 53.3% |
| JT Toppin →F | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 34.8 | 21.8 | 57.1% |
| Tyeree Bryan →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 17.1 | 3.5 | 47.1% |
| Luke Bamgboye →F | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 16.5 | 4.5 | 57.1% |
| Leon Horner →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 9.0 | 2.8 | 55.0% |
| Josiah Moseley →F | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 13.9 | 5.5 | 68.5% |
| Nolan Groves →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 6.4 | 1.0 | 39.3% |
| Marial Akuentok →F | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 5.9 | 1.1 | 46.8% |
| Jazz Henderson →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 4.2 | 0.9 | 42.5% |
| Jack Francis →G | Same programTexas Tech Red Raiders | 1.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| LaTrell Hoover →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Texas Tech vs Duke
69.1Texas Tech
76.8Duke
Duke win estimate73.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.7
Projected total145.8
80% home-margin range-8.2 to 23.6
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.4 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Texas Tech defense 48.0%Texas Tech attack 55.9% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Texas Tech defense 16.9%Texas Tech attack 15.6% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Texas Tech defense 27.6%Texas Tech attack 33.3% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Texas Tech defense 31.5%Texas Tech attack 31.7% · Duke defense 26.0%
Madison Square Garden
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →